They do something that gains the attention of the media, the media spreads news of "Fascism returning to Italy," and readers of the media scream, "FREE SPEECH." They didn't need to go on for longer than 24 hours because they gained the media's attention in less than 24 hours. They've turned Wikipedia into an effective tool for political activists.

I'm not going to comment on whether the stunt was wrong or not until I understand whether or not Wikipedia was actually endangered. I'm also wondering if Wikipedia had anything to do with changes being made to the bill. If so, then the stunt might have resulted in something positive.

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:31pm)

Of course they bailed. If not what are they doing to protect the free speech rights of the newspapers and the other sites still on the line?

Because they believe or they're claiming to believe that the protest was an act of self-preservation rather than activism. Defending non-WMF properties wouldn't be in line with the self-preservation line of thinking.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 6th October 2011, 5:41pm)

Hey, we're all in awe that you can read Italian. You are awesome! Really, really, AWESOME!!!

Maybe you can offer some translations and/or synopses rather than lists of links that the vast majority here can't read. I mean, that would be even more awesome.

I'd rather have you use Google Translate so that you could make your own judgments than to have you depend on my judgments and interpretations alone.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 7th October 2011, 1:17pm

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 7th October 2011, 7:09am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 6th October 2011, 6:31pm)

Of course they bailed. If not what are they doing to protect the free speech rights of the newspapers and the other sites still on the line?

Because they believe or they're claiming to believe that the protest was an act of self-preservation rather than activism. Defending non-WMF properties wouldn't be in line with the self-preservation line of thinking.

More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the Impact of Italian Culture in North America.

More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the Impact of Italian Culture in North America.

I believe that Wikipedia has the right to defend itself, but I don't believe that Wikipedia has the right to be used for activism. The Wikipedia community, on the hand, has the right to advocate changes in government, as long as they're not using Wikipedia or the Wikipedia name in order to do it (ie. activity outside of Wikipedia). Each individual Wikipedian has the right to express their views. They can create blogs and use Twitter in order to show their opposition to the public and help non-WMF publications.

Also, Wikipedia did help newspapers. Wikipedia turned local Italian concerns into international news. They drew international attention to the proposed law. Wikipedia's "weapon" is the spreading of information, and they used it well. Wikipedia passed the torch to the media, who in turn, passed it to an international community of vocal free speech advocates. Silvio Berlusconi and his bill are now under international scrutiny.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 7th October 2011, 3:00pm

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 7th October 2011, 8:50am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 7th October 2011, 9:56am)

More internet libertarian selfishness. What gives them the right ask others to be concerned about how the law impacts them when they care nothing about the more serious impact the law might have on important democratic institutions? But run along, the world is again safe from imaginary threats to important article writing such as the Impact of Italian Culture in North America.

I believe that Wikipedia has the right to defend itself, but I don't believe that Wikipedia has the right to be used for activism. The Wikipedia community, on the hand, has the right to advocate changes in government, as long as they're not using Wikipedia or the Wikipedia name in order to do it (ie. activity outside of Wikipedia). Each individual Wikipedian has the right to express their views. They can create blogs and use Twitter in order to show their opposition to the public and help non-WMF publications.

Also, Wikipedia did help newspapers. Wikipedia turned local Italian concerns into international news. They drew international attention to the proposed law. Wikipedia's "weapon" is the spreading of information, and they used it well. Wikipedia passed the torch to the media, who in turn, passed it to an international community of vocal free speech advocates. Silvio Berlusconi and his bill are now under international scrutiny.

Bullshit. You have your head so far up Wikipedia's ass you have no sense or reality at all. Wikipedians live in an isolated fantasy world of self importance. A few pieces of over scrapped techie press coverage, because it was a slow day on Baxter sightings, and the delusions of adequacy kick in . "Pass the torch to media?" Really? You caused scrutiny? Really? All I would ask is to participate as part of a wider social action for free speech. Just act responsible for a change. Be a part of something outside yourselves. It is much more fun I guess to engage in the delusion that you are the vanguard leadership of intergalactic struggle for free culture. Pathetic.

Mindless rot. Demonstrates WMF incompetence. What was really needed? A sober legal analysis of the impact of the Italian law, providing sound advice for Italian Wikipedia editors and administrators. While the huge amount of content generated about this issue might contain it somewhere, I sure haven't seen it. It should be created by an Italian lawyer and should represent the consensus of such available lawyers.

Otherwise this is all uninformed hysteria. I've seen this very kind of hysteria from steward-checkusers, and, in fact, I'm currently banned at meta, a minor inconvenience at worst, because of pointing it out to some of the very users who are wringing their hands over this mess, such as Millosh. If anyone is interested, see User talk for Marco Aurelio, where I asked Marco (the former Dferg) to explain a comment of his about my alleged "misrepresentations." He refused, and when I responded "suit yourself," dropping it, he demanded I be blocked indef. And then the mob shouts and waves the pitchforks, and very few actually look at the diffs presented. After all, why bother? We all know what a tendentious jerk Abd is, after all, he questioned my position a couple of times. Can you imagine that?

Yeah. Clear statement about neutrality policy. He's absolutely correct. Neutrality be damned. Worse, the WMF's own nonprofit status *could* be in question as a result of that WMF statement, though the situation has been shifting in the U.S, and there are lots of loopholes. This is the WMF attempting to influence Italian lawmakers, or it could be seen that way.

Independent associations of users could advocate for or against legislation, but ... the WMF may not be thrilled to allow such associations, with enough power to accomplish something, to exist. Maybe chapters can do it, if they are legally independent.

From what I've seen so far, there is no threat at all to either the WMF or to Italian users from the Italian law. It's wiki-hysteria. I've seen similar hysteria about "copyvio." Which, unless actually and officially encouraged, creates no hazard at all for the WMF, provided it merely responds properly to take-down notices, which, one might notice, would be far more efficient than holding massive discussions about each marginal copyvio. (And, yes, there are other issues, but, as well, some serious and common misunderstandings of copyright law among many who voice strong opinions in those discussions.)

One way to look at this situation is as a collective intelligence test. At one time, for enwiki, the user base would include enough experts, who were respected, that these nutso discussions would terminate with some sensible decision. Increasingly, those experts have burned out and what is left is ... what is willing to continue pushing the boulder up the hill.